Most commonly used telescope

Hi Lori, I still think hte best telescope would be a 10 inch dobsonian reflecting telescope. It is easy to use, wide field, and give good images. Perfect for variable star observing. Chris Stephan Robert Clyde Observatory Sebring, Florida USA

An additional benefit is the larger reflector will see fainter magnitudes, opening up possibilities for additional variables or allowing an observer to follow their light curve to fainter magnitudes. Mark Davis South Carolina

Thank you very much for the replies. I am actually surprised because I thought that a refractor have better definition and was recomended over the reflector when used from a town. Lori

Size for size you are correct that a refractor will have better definition/resolution, but the larger diameter mirror will allow you to see fainter stars, which in my opinion, would be more important for variable star observing. It is sort of like deep sky observing, where many people subscribe to the idea that "aperture rules". Now, if you have other observing interests, they couldmake the refractor more appealing. Even though Ihave a 12"reflector, Iprefer to use my 4"refractor for double star and some lunar observing. If you decide to go with a reflector, keep in mind their portability. My 12"is not very portable, therefore Iagree with Chris that a 10"reflector would be close to perfect. Good luck with your choice! Mark Davis South Carolina

I forgot to mention that I am interested in astrophotography. I dont want to have a lot of weight to lug around. I prefer good definition. I have a friend who shows me double stars with his refractor and you can clearly see the difference in color. I am not sure if it that important to me to see far away barely visible stars. I am very new to this all. How does a refractor fare with meteors? Lori

Hi Lori, Ido not do astrophotography so can't offer any advice with that. However, for double stars, Ilove my refractor. Istill use the reflector because with a 12" mirror, it can resolve closer pairs, but the image is not as "crisp" as with my refractor. Observing meteors with a telescope is a difficult undertaking, but it is extremely valuable as the meteor's path can be determined with precision. For telescopic meteor observing the most importantcharacteristic of a telescope would be a wide field of view. Itried it many years ago but switched to visual observing. If you are interested in doing visual observing of meteors, send me a private email and Iwill send you a bunch of information to get you started. -Mark

For many months I wrestled over which type of telescope I should acquire for observing variables, especially for below magnitude 8 and down to magnitude 11. And... for many years I used a 16X60 pair of binoculars with great success. However, with the binoculars, I never felt completelycomfortablewith estimating accuracy, beyond mag 8.... So, I finally settled on a 102mm refractor, and later on, I picked up a smaller light weight 80mm refractor. For me, it's the scope I feel most comfortable with. I used either a 35mm or 20mm eyepiece for most of my obs and depending on the stars i've decided to look at, on a given night, I'll use either an alt-azimuth or equatorial mount. As stated in the AAVSO manual, "there is no 'ideal' telescope for variable star observing". I do like the reflector design for the short focus (f/5 for example) but in my case, the lighter weight, excellent contrast and versatility works for me most of the time. Lori, I hope your skies are nice and dark in the south of Spain! Good luck to you! Richard

Thanks for answering, I wish I could have more opinions. I would like to post this on the aavso site. Are you a member of the aavso? Here in the South of Spain there are a few places with dark skies but it is very populated and there is little or no consciousness over lighting. It is a personal fight I have here with the town hall. I have joined a club and they go to the hills every new moon about an hour away from my home. thanks again Lori

Lori, if you're interested in also doing astrophotography then you're going to want to give GEM's (german equatorial mount) a serious look. If I could go back in time to when I got my CPC 1100 last summer, I'd most likely have gone with a GEM over the ALT-AZ mount, as it is a limiting factor in me pursuing CCD work beyond planetary imaging at the moment. I am looking at a way around it though, to start working towards building an imaging setup for variable stars. It will probably be cheaper and easier for me to convert my existing equipment than to buy new since the cost for a quality GEM can be expensive. For now, the plan I'm looking at is in getting a good wedge to mount my CPC on and then get a good, monochrome CCD camera but that won't be too soon. lol The other option would be to get a smaller scope with a GEM but that's where I'm at a loss. For variable observing only, you won't need a GEM mounted scope but for imaging you would.

I guess the best telescope is the one that you'll use a lot. For you this probably means that it's not too heavy as you'll want to take it out of town. I own a 6 " f/5 Newtonian on a GEM. I have no secondary guiding scope (yet) and I do some exploratory astrophotography with it, using 30 second exposures with a cheap DSLR which I then stack with software. It's fun and you get nice , but not exactly breathtaking images with it. I would consider this kind of equipment about the minimum to begin astrophotography, and I'm still happy with the configuration:

• equipment is light enough to carry to my car in one go.
• rapidly assembled at observation site and doesn't take long to cool down
• can be used for several kinds of objects (variable stars of course, moon, bright nebula, galaxies, even planetary nebula, not so good for planets tho)

I have a computerized GoTo mount but that's just luxuary, to get started you can do with just a motorized 1-axis clock drive. CS HBE